Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2141

control, N = 1061

treatment, N = 1081

p-value2

age

212

51.21 ± 12.94 (23 - 75)

50.47 ± 13.22 (23 - 75)

51.93 ± 12.68 (28 - 73)

0.413

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

214

0.557

f

173 (81%)

84 (79%)

89 (82%)

m

41 (19%)

22 (21%)

19 (18%)

occupation

214

0.847

day_training

5 (2.3%)

2 (1.9%)

3 (2.8%)

full_time

24 (11%)

12 (11%)

12 (11%)

homemaker

30 (14%)

14 (13%)

16 (15%)

other

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.9%)

part_time

40 (19%)

22 (21%)

18 (17%)

retired

51 (24%)

23 (22%)

28 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.7%)

4 (3.8%)

4 (3.7%)

shelter

1 (0.5%)

1 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.9%)

t_and_e

3 (1.4%)

2 (1.9%)

1 (0.9%)

unemploy

48 (22%)

26 (25%)

22 (20%)

marital

214

0.981

cohabitation

1 (0.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.9%)

divore

24 (11%)

13 (12%)

11 (10%)

in_relationship

4 (1.9%)

2 (1.9%)

2 (1.9%)

married

68 (32%)

32 (30%)

36 (33%)

none

99 (46%)

50 (47%)

49 (45%)

seperation

3 (1.4%)

2 (1.9%)

1 (0.9%)

widow

15 (7.0%)

7 (6.6%)

8 (7.4%)

edu

214

0.538

bachelor

47 (22%)

20 (19%)

27 (25%)

diploma

37 (17%)

23 (22%)

14 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.3%)

4 (3.8%)

1 (0.9%)

postgraduate

15 (7.0%)

8 (7.5%)

7 (6.5%)

primary

18 (8.4%)

8 (7.5%)

10 (9.3%)

secondary_1_3

25 (12%)

13 (12%)

12 (11%)

secondary_4_5

57 (27%)

26 (25%)

31 (29%)

secondary_6_7

10 (4.7%)

4 (3.8%)

6 (5.6%)

fam_income

214

0.851

10001_12000

7 (3.3%)

2 (1.9%)

5 (4.6%)

12001_14000

11 (5.1%)

4 (3.8%)

7 (6.5%)

14001_16000

10 (4.7%)

4 (3.8%)

6 (5.6%)

16001_18000

5 (2.3%)

3 (2.8%)

2 (1.9%)

18001_20000

10 (4.7%)

7 (6.6%)

3 (2.8%)

20001_above

37 (17%)

21 (20%)

16 (15%)

2001_4000

32 (15%)

15 (14%)

17 (16%)

4001_6000

27 (13%)

12 (11%)

15 (14%)

6001_8000

20 (9.3%)

11 (10%)

9 (8.3%)

8001_10000

17 (7.9%)

9 (8.5%)

8 (7.4%)

below_2000

38 (18%)

18 (17%)

20 (19%)

medication

214

191 (89%)

94 (89%)

97 (90%)

0.789

onset_duration

212

15.40 ± 10.90 (0 - 63)

15.12 ± 10.99 (0 - 56)

15.68 ± 10.86 (0 - 63)

0.709

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

210

35.91 ± 14.59 (-18 - 72)

35.25 ± 12.96 (10 - 67)

36.56 ± 16.06 (-18 - 72)

0.517

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2141

control, N = 1061

treatment, N = 1081

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

214

3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.968

recovery_stage_b

214

17.91 ± 2.82 (8 - 24)

18.05 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)

17.78 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.486

ras_confidence

214

29.77 ± 5.41 (9 - 45)

29.57 ± 5.31 (14 - 42)

29.96 ± 5.52 (9 - 45)

0.593

ras_willingness

214

11.64 ± 2.10 (3 - 15)

11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15)

11.61 ± 2.21 (3 - 15)

0.839

ras_goal

214

17.35 ± 3.25 (5 - 25)

17.19 ± 3.17 (7 - 25)

17.51 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.472

ras_reliance

214

13.18 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)

13.03 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.94 (4 - 20)

0.438

ras_domination

214

9.80 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

10.01 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

9.59 ± 2.39 (3 - 15)

0.204

symptom

214

30.28 ± 9.28 (14 - 56)

30.28 ± 9.44 (14 - 55)

30.28 ± 9.16 (14 - 56)

0.997

slof_work

214

22.17 ± 4.75 (10 - 30)

22.30 ± 4.42 (12 - 30)

22.05 ± 5.07 (10 - 30)

0.695

slof_relationship

214

25.14 ± 5.75 (9 - 35)

24.64 ± 5.85 (9 - 35)

25.64 ± 5.64 (11 - 35)

0.206

satisfaction

214

20.21 ± 7.02 (5 - 35)

19.54 ± 6.87 (5 - 34)

20.88 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)

0.163

mhc_emotional

214

10.71 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

10.61 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

10.81 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

0.694

mhc_social

214

15.20 ± 5.78 (5 - 30)

14.97 ± 5.84 (5 - 30)

15.43 ± 5.75 (5 - 30)

0.567

mhc_psychological

214

21.77 ± 6.67 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.56 (7 - 36)

21.99 ± 6.81 (6 - 36)

0.628

resilisnce

214

16.56 ± 4.59 (6 - 30)

16.01 ± 4.28 (6 - 30)

17.09 ± 4.83 (6 - 30)

0.084

social_provision

214

13.57 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

13.20 ± 2.69 (5 - 20)

13.94 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

0.051

els_value_living

214

16.96 ± 3.08 (5 - 25)

16.80 ± 3.02 (6 - 24)

17.12 ± 3.15 (5 - 25)

0.451

els_life_fulfill

214

12.70 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

12.37 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

13.03 ± 3.26 (4 - 20)

0.140

els

214

29.66 ± 5.81 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 5.71 (11 - 44)

30.15 ± 5.89 (9 - 45)

0.219

social_connect

214

26.59 ± 9.07 (8 - 48)

26.92 ± 8.89 (8 - 48)

26.28 ± 9.28 (8 - 48)

0.608

shs_agency

214

14.31 ± 4.96 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.79 (3 - 23)

14.88 ± 5.09 (3 - 24)

0.092

shs_pathway

214

15.88 ± 4.13 (3 - 24)

15.42 ± 4.24 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.101

shs

214

30.20 ± 8.71 (6 - 48)

29.15 ± 8.68 (6 - 46)

31.22 ± 8.66 (7 - 48)

0.082

esteem

214

12.69 ± 1.59 (9 - 20)

12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.73 ± 1.56 (10 - 20)

0.712

mlq_search

214

14.76 ± 3.48 (3 - 21)

14.42 ± 3.42 (4 - 21)

15.09 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

0.161

mlq_presence

214

13.38 ± 4.29 (3 - 21)

13.25 ± 4.09 (3 - 21)

13.52 ± 4.50 (3 - 21)

0.643

mlq

214

28.14 ± 6.93 (6 - 42)

27.67 ± 6.65 (7 - 40)

28.61 ± 7.19 (6 - 42)

0.322

empower

214

19.22 ± 4.38 (6 - 30)

18.89 ± 4.24 (9 - 30)

19.55 ± 4.51 (6 - 30)

0.272

ismi_resistance

214

14.34 ± 2.62 (5 - 20)

14.34 ± 2.36 (6 - 20)

14.33 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

0.986

ismi_discrimation

214

11.71 ± 3.04 (5 - 20)

11.84 ± 2.92 (5 - 20)

11.57 ± 3.16 (5 - 20)

0.524

sss_affective

214

10.30 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.21 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

10.39 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.715

sss_behavior

214

9.94 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

10.06 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.648

sss_cognitive

214

8.63 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

8.49 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

8.77 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

0.587

sss

214

28.87 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)

28.75 ± 10.19 (9 - 54)

28.98 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)

0.873

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.13

0.119

2.90, 3.36

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.167

-0.328, 0.327

0.998

time_point

1st

2nd

0.130

0.157

-0.179, 0.439

0.410

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.173

0.231

-0.280, 0.625

0.456

Pseudo R square

0.008

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.283

17.5, 18.6

group

control

treatment

-0.257

0.399

-1.04, 0.525

0.520

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.272

0.307

-0.874, 0.329

0.377

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.833

0.452

-0.053, 1.72

0.067

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.534

28.5, 30.6

group

control

treatment

0.389

0.753

-1.09, 1.86

0.606

time_point

1st

2nd

0.629

0.493

-0.338, 1.60

0.205

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.54

0.727

0.120, 2.97

0.036

Pseudo R square

0.024

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.201

11.3, 12.1

group

control

treatment

-0.043

0.284

-0.600, 0.514

0.879

time_point

1st

2nd

0.068

0.212

-0.348, 0.484

0.749

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.467

0.312

-0.144, 1.08

0.137

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.319

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.332

0.450

-0.549, 1.21

0.461

time_point

1st

2nd

0.231

0.314

-0.384, 0.846

0.462

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.820

0.462

-0.085, 1.73

0.078

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.284

12.5, 13.6

group

control

treatment

0.315

0.400

-0.469, 1.10

0.431

time_point

1st

2nd

0.395

0.272

-0.138, 0.929

0.149

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.456

0.401

-0.330, 1.24

0.258

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.234

9.55, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.413

0.330

-1.06, 0.233

0.211

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.039

0.266

-0.560, 0.482

0.883

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.06

0.391

0.289, 1.82

0.008

Pseudo R square

0.019

symptom

(Intercept)

30.3

0.897

28.5, 32.0

group

control

treatment

-0.103

1.265

-2.58, 2.38

0.935

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.25

0.713

-2.65, 0.150

0.083

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.45

1.052

-3.51, 0.612

0.170

Pseudo R square

0.012

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.458

21.4, 23.2

group

control

treatment

-0.216

0.646

-1.48, 1.05

0.739

time_point

1st

2nd

0.150

0.426

-0.686, 0.985

0.726

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.470

0.628

-0.761, 1.70

0.456

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.6

0.558

23.5, 25.7

group

control

treatment

1.04

0.787

-0.505, 2.58

0.189

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.133

0.532

-1.18, 0.909

0.802

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.680

0.783

-0.855, 2.22

0.387

Pseudo R square

0.013

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.5

0.685

18.2, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.35

0.966

-0.544, 3.24

0.164

time_point

1st

2nd

0.889

0.626

-0.338, 2.12

0.158

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.911

0.922

-0.896, 2.72

0.325

Pseudo R square

0.022

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.365

9.90, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.216

0.515

-0.794, 1.23

0.675

time_point

1st

2nd

0.356

0.307

-0.245, 0.958

0.247

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.112

0.452

-0.775, 0.999

0.805

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.0

0.578

13.8, 16.1

group

control

treatment

0.473

0.816

-1.13, 2.07

0.562

time_point

1st

2nd

0.810

0.541

-0.249, 1.87

0.136

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.177

0.797

-1.38, 1.74

0.824

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

0.669

20.2, 22.9

group

control

treatment

0.492

0.944

-1.36, 2.34

0.603

time_point

1st

2nd

0.998

0.586

-0.152, 2.15

0.091

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.039

0.865

-1.66, 1.73

0.964

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.0

0.436

15.2, 16.9

group

control

treatment

1.05

0.615

-0.150, 2.26

0.088

time_point

1st

2nd

0.756

0.449

-0.124, 1.64

0.095

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.816

0.661

-0.479, 2.11

0.219

Pseudo R square

0.036

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.278

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.738

0.392

-0.030, 1.51

0.061

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.196

0.279

-0.743, 0.351

0.483

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.531

0.411

-0.274, 1.34

0.198

Pseudo R square

0.027

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.306

16.2, 17.4

group

control

treatment

0.335

0.432

-0.511, 1.18

0.439

time_point

1st

2nd

0.282

0.307

-0.319, 0.883

0.359

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.534

0.451

-0.351, 1.42

0.239

Pseudo R square

0.014

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.315

11.7, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.668

0.445

-0.204, 1.54

0.135

time_point

1st

2nd

0.235

0.292

-0.338, 0.808

0.423

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.539

0.431

-0.306, 1.38

0.213

Pseudo R square

0.023

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.573

28.0, 30.3

group

control

treatment

1.00

0.808

-0.581, 2.59

0.216

time_point

1st

2nd

0.539

0.515

-0.471, 1.55

0.297

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.02

0.760

-0.470, 2.51

0.182

Pseudo R square

0.021

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

0.896

25.2, 28.7

group

control

treatment

-0.683

1.263

-3.16, 1.79

0.589

time_point

1st

2nd

0.287

0.787

-1.25, 1.83

0.716

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.73

1.160

-6.00, -1.45

0.002

Pseudo R square

0.025

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.483

12.8, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.14

0.681

-0.192, 2.48

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.558

0.413

-0.251, 1.37

0.179

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.462

0.609

-0.732, 1.66

0.449

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.395

14.6, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.938

0.557

-0.153, 2.03

0.093

time_point

1st

2nd

0.648

0.366

-0.069, 1.37

0.079

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.234

0.540

-0.824, 1.29

0.665

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.838

27.5, 30.8

group

control

treatment

2.08

1.182

-0.236, 4.40

0.080

time_point

1st

2nd

1.20

0.722

-0.214, 2.62

0.099

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.692

1.065

-1.40, 2.78

0.517

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.149

12.4, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.068

0.210

-0.344, 0.481

0.746

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.048

0.197

-0.433, 0.338

0.809

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.029

0.288

-0.536, 0.594

0.920

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.336

13.8, 15.1

group

control

treatment

0.710

0.474

-0.220, 1.64

0.136

time_point

1st

2nd

0.677

0.382

-0.073, 1.43

0.079

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.639

0.562

-1.74, 0.463

0.258

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.411

12.4, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.306

0.579

-0.829, 1.44

0.598

time_point

1st

2nd

0.719

0.432

-0.128, 1.57

0.099

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.124

0.636

-1.12, 1.37

0.845

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.673

26.4, 29.0

group

control

treatment

1.02

0.949

-0.844, 2.88

0.285

time_point

1st

2nd

1.40

0.737

-0.048, 2.84

0.060

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.495

1.083

-2.62, 1.63

0.648

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.433

18.0, 19.7

group

control

treatment

0.672

0.610

-0.525, 1.87

0.272

time_point

1st

2nd

1.05

0.411

0.246, 1.86

0.012

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.394

0.605

-1.58, 0.792

0.516

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.248

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

0.022

0.350

-0.664, 0.709

0.949

time_point

1st

2nd

0.430

0.291

-0.141, 1.00

0.142

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.406

0.428

-0.432, 1.24

0.344

Pseudo R square

0.015

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.298

11.3, 12.4

group

control

treatment

-0.255

0.420

-1.08, 0.568

0.544

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.550

0.352

-1.24, 0.141

0.121

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.373

0.518

-1.39, 0.642

0.473

Pseudo R square

0.017

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.2

0.354

9.51, 10.9

group

control

treatment

0.168

0.500

-0.811, 1.15

0.736

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.361

0.315

-0.979, 0.256

0.254

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.674

0.465

-1.59, 0.236

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.1

0.357

9.36, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.250

0.504

-1.24, 0.738

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.540

0.328

-1.18, 0.104

0.103

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.165

0.484

-1.11, 0.784

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.49

0.355

7.79, 9.19

group

control

treatment

0.253

0.501

-0.729, 1.23

0.614

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.378

0.336

-1.04, 0.281

0.263

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.531

0.495

-1.50, 0.440

0.286

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

28.8

1.002

26.8, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.169

1.414

-2.60, 2.94

0.905

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.26

0.832

-2.89, 0.371

0.133

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.30

1.228

-3.70, 1.11

0.293

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.13 (95% CI [2.90, 3.36], t(324) = 26.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.79e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33], t(324) = -2.87e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -3.94e-04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.44], t(324) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.62], t(324) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.05 (95% CI [17.49, 18.60], t(324) = 63.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.52], t(324) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.33], t(324) = -0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.72], t(324) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.57 (95% CI [28.52, 30.61], t(324) = 55.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.86], t(324) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.60], t(324) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [0.12, 2.97], t(324) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [0.02, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.27, 12.06], t(324) = 57.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.51], t(324) = -0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.48], t(324) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.08], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.19 (95% CI [16.56, 17.81], t(324) = 53.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.21], t(324) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.85], t(324) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.73], t(324) = 1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.47, 13.58], t(324) = 45.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.10], t(324) = 0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.93], t(324) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.24], t(324) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.55, 10.47], t(324) = 42.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.23], t(324) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.48], t(324) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.29, 1.82], t(324) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.12, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.53, 32.04], t(324) = 33.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(324) = -0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-2.65, 0.15], t(324) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.51, 0.61], t(324) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.30 (95% CI [21.40, 23.20], t(324) = 48.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.05], t(324) = -0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.98], t(324) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.70], t(324) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.64 (95% CI [23.55, 25.74], t(324) = 44.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.58], t(324) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.91], t(324) = -0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.22], t(324) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [18.20, 20.88], t(324) = 28.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.54, 3.24], t(324) = 1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.12], t(324) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.72], t(324) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.90, 11.33], t(324) = 29.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.23], t(324) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.96], t(324) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.00], t(324) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.84, 16.11], t(324) = 25.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.07], t(324) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.87], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.38, 1.74], t(324) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.24, 22.86], t(324) = 32.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.34], t(324) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.15], t(324) = 1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.73], t(324) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 5.71e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.16, 16.86], t(324) = 36.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.26], t(324) = 1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.64], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.11], t(324) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.65, 13.74], t(324) = 47.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.51], t(324) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.35], t(324) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.34], t(324) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.80 (95% CI [16.20, 17.40], t(324) = 54.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(324) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.88], t(324) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.42], t(324) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.75, 12.99], t(324) = 39.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.54], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.81], t(324) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.38], t(324) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.05, 30.29], t(324) = 50.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.59], t(324) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.55], t(324) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.51], t(324) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.92 (95% CI [25.16, 28.67], t(324) = 30.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.16, 1.79], t(324) = -0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.83], t(324) = 0.36, p = 0.715; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.73, 95% CI [-6.00, -1.45], t(324) = -3.21, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.79, 14.68], t(324) = 28.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.48], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.37], t(324) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.66], t(324) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.42 (95% CI [14.64, 16.19], t(324) = 39.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.03], t(324) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.37], t(324) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.29], t(324) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.15 (95% CI [27.51, 30.79], t(324) = 34.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 4.40], t(324) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.62], t(324) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.78], t(324) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.06e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.36, 12.94], t(324) = 84.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.48], t(324) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34], t(324) = -0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.59], t(324) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.77, 15.08], t(324) = 42.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.64], t(324) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.43], t(324) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.46], t(324) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.44, 14.05], t(324) = 32.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.44], t(324) = 0.53, p = 0.597; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.57], t(324) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.37], t(324) = 0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.67 (95% CI [26.35, 28.99], t(324) = 41.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.88], t(324) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.84], t(324) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-6.85e-03, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.62, 1.63], t(324) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.89 (95% CI [18.04, 19.74], t(324) = 43.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.87], t(324) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [0.25, 1.86], t(324) = 2.56, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.06, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.79], t(324) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.34 (95% CI [13.85, 14.83], t(324) = 57.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.71], t(324) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.72e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.00], t(324) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.24], t(324) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.26, 12.42], t(324) = 39.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.57], t(324) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.14], t(324) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.64], t(324) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.51, 10.90], t(324) = 28.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.15], t(324) = 0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.26], t(324) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.24], t(324) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.36, 10.76], t(324) = 28.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.74], t(324) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.10], t(324) = -1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.78], t(324) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.49 (95% CI [7.79, 9.19], t(324) = 23.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.23], t(324) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.28], t(324) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.44], t(324) = -1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.75 (95% CI [26.79, 30.72], t(324) = 28.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.94], t(324) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.37], t(324) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.11], t(324) = -1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,053.498

1,064.895

-523.749

1,047.498

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,055.534

1,078.329

-521.767

1,043.534

3.963

3

0.265

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,590.648

1,602.045

-792.324

1,584.648

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,592.979

1,615.774

-790.490

1,580.979

3.669

3

0.299

ras_confidence

null

3

1,992.249

2,003.646

-993.124

1,986.249

ras_confidence

random

6

1,979.650

2,002.444

-983.825

1,967.650

18.599

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,362.699

1,374.096

-678.350

1,356.699

ras_willingness

random

6

1,363.018

1,385.813

-675.509

1,351.018

5.681

3

0.128

ras_goal

null

3

1,657.975

1,669.372

-825.988

1,651.975

ras_goal

random

6

1,652.518

1,675.312

-820.259

1,640.518

11.457

3

0.009

ras_reliance

null

3

1,575.461

1,586.858

-784.730

1,569.461

ras_reliance

random

6

1,570.012

1,592.806

-779.006

1,558.012

11.449

3

0.010

ras_domination

null

3

1,482.441

1,493.839

-738.221

1,476.441

ras_domination

random

6

1,475.986

1,498.780

-731.993

1,463.986

12.455

3

0.006

symptom

null

3

2,298.340

2,309.738

-1,146.170

2,292.340

symptom

random

6

2,289.691

2,312.485

-1,138.845

2,277.691

14.650

3

0.002

slof_work

null

3

1,875.909

1,887.306

-934.954

1,869.909

slof_work

random

6

1,879.936

1,902.731

-933.968

1,867.936

1.973

3

0.578

slof_relationship

null

3

2,012.758

2,024.155

-1,003.379

2,006.758

slof_relationship

random

6

2,015.122

2,037.917

-1,001.561

2,003.122

3.636

3

0.304

satisfaction

null

3

2,147.272

2,158.670

-1,070.636

2,141.272

satisfaction

random

6

2,141.531

2,164.325

-1,064.765

2,129.531

11.741

3

0.008

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,706.408

1,717.806

-850.204

1,700.408

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,708.844

1,731.639

-848.422

1,696.844

3.564

3

0.313

mhc_social

null

3

2,034.137

2,045.534

-1,014.069

2,028.137

mhc_social

random

6

2,034.736

2,057.531

-1,011.368

2,022.736

5.401

3

0.145

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,117.344

2,128.741

-1,055.672

2,111.344

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,117.579

2,140.374

-1,052.790

2,105.579

5.764

3

0.124

resilisnce

null

3

1,879.417

1,890.815

-936.709

1,873.417

resilisnce

random

6

1,867.880

1,890.674

-927.940

1,855.880

17.538

3

0.001

social_provision

null

3

1,567.294

1,578.691

-780.647

1,561.294

social_provision

random

6

1,565.889

1,588.683

-776.944

1,553.889

7.405

3

0.060

els_value_living

null

3

1,631.090

1,642.487

-812.545

1,625.090

els_value_living

random

6

1,628.909

1,651.703

-808.454

1,616.909

8.181

3

0.042

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,637.036

1,648.433

-815.518

1,631.036

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,632.955

1,655.750

-810.478

1,620.955

10.081

3

0.018

els

null

3

2,025.899

2,037.296

-1,009.950

2,019.899

els

random

6

2,020.539

2,043.334

-1,004.270

2,008.539

11.360

3

0.010

social_connect

null

3

2,321.964

2,333.361

-1,157.982

2,315.964

social_connect

random

6

2,310.285

2,333.079

-1,149.142

2,298.285

17.679

3

0.001

shs_agency

null

3

1,901.214

1,912.611

-947.607

1,895.214

shs_agency

random

6

1,896.775

1,919.570

-942.388

1,884.775

10.438

3

0.015

shs_pathway

null

3

1,786.445

1,797.842

-890.223

1,780.445

shs_pathway

random

6

1,781.156

1,803.950

-884.578

1,769.156

11.289

3

0.010

shs

null

3

2,268.779

2,280.176

-1,131.389

2,262.779

shs

random

6

2,262.596

2,285.391

-1,125.298

2,250.596

12.183

3

0.007

esteem

null

3

1,200.367

1,211.764

-597.183

1,194.367

esteem

random

6

1,206.126

1,228.920

-597.063

1,194.126

0.241

3

0.971

mlq_search

null

3

1,714.691

1,726.088

-854.345

1,708.691

mlq_search

random

6

1,716.262

1,739.057

-852.131

1,704.262

4.428

3

0.219

mlq_presence

null

3

1,833.614

1,845.011

-913.807

1,827.614

mlq_presence

random

6

1,833.315

1,856.109

-910.657

1,821.315

6.300

3

0.098

mlq

null

3

2,166.622

2,178.020

-1,080.311

2,160.622

mlq

random

6

2,166.945

2,189.740

-1,077.473

2,154.945

5.677

3

0.128

empower

null

3

1,849.907

1,861.304

-921.953

1,843.907

empower

random

6

1,846.562

1,869.356

-917.281

1,834.562

9.345

3

0.025

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,525.216

1,536.613

-759.608

1,519.216

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,521.863

1,544.658

-754.932

1,509.863

9.353

3

0.025

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,646.672

1,658.069

-820.336

1,640.672

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,643.614

1,666.408

-815.807

1,631.614

9.058

3

0.029

sss_affective

null

3

1,705.459

1,716.857

-849.730

1,699.459

sss_affective

random

6

1,701.031

1,723.826

-844.516

1,689.031

10.428

3

0.015

sss_behavior

null

3

1,714.353

1,725.750

-854.177

1,708.353

sss_behavior

random

6

1,713.418

1,736.213

-850.709

1,701.418

6.935

3

0.074

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,717.146

1,728.544

-855.573

1,711.146

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,715.579

1,738.373

-851.789

1,703.579

7.568

3

0.056

sss

null

3

2,376.772

2,388.169

-1,185.386

2,370.772

sss

random

6

2,372.535

2,395.330

-1,180.268

2,360.535

10.237

3

0.017

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

106

3.13 ± 1.22

108

3.13 ± 1.22

0.998

0.001

recovery_stage_a

2nd

63

3.26 ± 1.18

-0.138

53

3.43 ± 1.17

-0.321

0.434

-0.182

recovery_stage_b

1st

106

18.05 ± 2.91

108

17.79 ± 2.92

0.520

0.143

recovery_stage_b

2nd

63

17.77 ± 2.68

0.152

53

18.35 ± 2.62

-0.312

0.244

-0.321

ras_confidence

1st

106

29.57 ± 5.50

108

29.95 ± 5.52

0.606

-0.137

ras_confidence

2nd

63

30.20 ± 4.87

-0.221

53

32.13 ± 4.70

-0.763

0.031

-0.679

ras_willingness

1st

106

11.67 ± 2.07

108

11.63 ± 2.08

0.879

0.035

ras_willingness

2nd

63

11.74 ± 1.89

-0.055

53

12.16 ± 1.85

-0.433

0.224

-0.343

ras_goal

1st

106

17.19 ± 3.28

108

17.52 ± 3.30

0.461

-0.183

ras_goal

2nd

63

17.42 ± 2.95

-0.127

53

18.57 ± 2.86

-0.578

0.034

-0.634

ras_reliance

1st

106

13.03 ± 2.92

108

13.34 ± 2.93

0.431

-0.200

ras_reliance

2nd

63

13.42 ± 2.61

-0.251

53

14.19 ± 2.53

-0.540

0.108

-0.490

ras_domination

1st

106

10.01 ± 2.41

108

9.60 ± 2.41

0.211

0.265

ras_domination

2nd

63

9.97 ± 2.24

0.025

53

10.61 ± 2.20

-0.651

0.121

-0.412

symptom

1st

106

30.28 ± 9.23

108

30.18 ± 9.27

0.935

0.025

symptom

2nd

63

29.04 ± 7.93

0.305

53

27.48 ± 7.58

0.661

0.283

0.380

slof_work

1st

106

22.30 ± 4.72

108

22.09 ± 4.74

0.739

0.088

slof_work

2nd

63

22.45 ± 4.18

-0.061

53

22.71 ± 4.04

-0.252

0.740

-0.103

slof_relationship

1st

106

24.64 ± 5.75

108

25.68 ± 5.77

0.189

-0.337

slof_relationship

2nd

63

24.51 ± 5.12

0.043

53

26.23 ± 4.96

-0.178

0.068

-0.559

satisfaction

1st

106

19.54 ± 7.05

108

20.89 ± 7.08

0.164

-0.374

satisfaction

2nd

63

20.43 ± 6.23

-0.246

53

22.69 ± 6.01

-0.499

0.048

-0.626

mhc_emotional

1st

106

10.61 ± 3.76

108

10.83 ± 3.78

0.675

-0.123

mhc_emotional

2nd

63

10.97 ± 3.27

-0.202

53

11.30 ± 3.13

-0.266

0.581

-0.187

mhc_social

1st

106

14.97 ± 5.95

108

15.44 ± 5.98

0.562

-0.152

mhc_social

2nd

63

15.78 ± 5.29

-0.259

53

16.43 ± 5.11

-0.316

0.502

-0.208

mhc_psychological

1st

106

21.55 ± 6.89

108

22.04 ± 6.92

0.603

-0.146

mhc_psychological

2nd

63

22.54 ± 6.03

-0.296

53

23.08 ± 5.80

-0.307

0.630

-0.157

resilisnce

1st

106

16.01 ± 4.49

108

17.06 ± 4.50

0.088

-0.404

resilisnce

2nd

63

16.76 ± 4.07

-0.289

53

18.64 ± 3.97

-0.602

0.013

-0.717

social_provision

1st

106

13.20 ± 2.86

108

13.94 ± 2.87

0.061

-0.456

social_provision

2nd

63

13.00 ± 2.58

0.121

53

14.27 ± 2.51

-0.207

0.008

-0.784

els_value_living

1st

106

16.80 ± 3.15

108

17.14 ± 3.16

0.439

-0.188

els_value_living

2nd

63

17.08 ± 2.84

-0.159

53

17.95 ± 2.76

-0.459

0.097

-0.488

els_life_fulfill

1st

106

12.37 ± 3.25

108

13.04 ± 3.26

0.135

-0.396

els_life_fulfill

2nd

63

12.60 ± 2.88

-0.139

53

13.81 ± 2.78

-0.458

0.023

-0.715

els

1st

106

29.17 ± 5.90

108

30.17 ± 5.92

0.216

-0.338

els

2nd

63

29.71 ± 5.19

-0.182

53

31.73 ± 5.01

-0.525

0.034

-0.681

social_connect

1st

106

26.92 ± 9.22

108

26.23 ± 9.26

0.589

0.151

social_connect

2nd

63

27.20 ± 8.08

-0.063

53

22.79 ± 7.77

0.760

0.003

0.974

shs_agency

1st

106

13.74 ± 4.97

108

14.88 ± 4.99

0.095

-0.482

shs_agency

2nd

63

14.29 ± 4.33

-0.235

53

15.90 ± 4.16

-0.430

0.043

-0.676

shs_pathway

1st

106

15.42 ± 4.06

108

16.35 ± 4.08

0.093

-0.444

shs_pathway

2nd

63

16.06 ± 3.60

-0.307

53

17.24 ± 3.48

-0.417

0.076

-0.554

shs

1st

106

29.15 ± 8.63

108

31.23 ± 8.67

0.080

-0.501

shs

2nd

63

30.35 ± 7.53

-0.289

53

33.13 ± 7.24

-0.456

0.044

-0.668

esteem

1st

106

12.65 ± 1.54

108

12.72 ± 1.54

0.746

-0.058

esteem

2nd

63

12.60 ± 1.49

0.041

53

12.70 ± 1.47

0.016

0.725

-0.083

mlq_search

1st

106

14.42 ± 3.46

108

15.13 ± 3.47

0.136

-0.316

mlq_search

2nd

63

15.10 ± 3.22

-0.302

53

15.17 ± 3.16

-0.017

0.905

-0.032

mlq_presence

1st

106

13.25 ± 4.23

108

13.55 ± 4.25

0.598

-0.122

mlq_presence

2nd

63

13.96 ± 3.86

-0.286

53

14.40 ± 3.76

-0.335

0.544

-0.171

mlq

1st

106

27.67 ± 6.93

108

28.69 ± 6.96

0.285

-0.236

mlq

2nd

63

29.07 ± 6.39

-0.324

53

29.59 ± 6.25

-0.209

0.658

-0.121

empower

1st

106

18.89 ± 4.46

108

19.56 ± 4.47

0.272

-0.283

empower

2nd

63

19.94 ± 3.97

-0.442

53

20.22 ± 3.84

-0.277

0.703

-0.117

ismi_resistance

1st

106

14.34 ± 2.56

108

14.36 ± 2.57

0.949

-0.013

ismi_resistance

2nd

63

14.77 ± 2.40

-0.251

53

15.20 ± 2.36

-0.488

0.334

-0.250

ismi_discrimation

1st

106

11.84 ± 3.07

108

11.58 ± 3.08

0.544

0.123

ismi_discrimation

2nd

63

11.29 ± 2.88

0.265

53

10.66 ± 2.84

0.444

0.240

0.302

sss_affective

1st

106

10.21 ± 3.65

108

10.38 ± 3.66

0.736

-0.093

sss_affective

2nd

63

9.85 ± 3.20

0.199

53

9.34 ± 3.09

0.571

0.388

0.279

sss_behavior

1st

106

10.06 ± 3.68

108

9.81 ± 3.69

0.621

0.132

sss_behavior

2nd

63

9.52 ± 3.25

0.285

53

9.10 ± 3.14

0.372

0.486

0.219

sss_cognitive

1st

106

8.49 ± 3.66

108

8.74 ± 3.67

0.614

-0.130

sss_cognitive

2nd

63

8.11 ± 3.26

0.194

53

7.84 ± 3.15

0.468

0.641

0.143

sss

1st

106

28.75 ± 10.32

108

28.92 ± 10.36

0.905

-0.035

sss

2nd

63

27.49 ± 8.94

0.264

53

26.37 ± 8.57

0.535

0.489

0.236

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(292.91) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.33)

2st

t(324.85) = 0.78, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.60)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(261.59) = -0.64, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.53)

2st

t(325.94) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.55)

ras_confidence

1st

t(245.44) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.87)

2st

t(321.88) = 2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.18 to 3.69)

ras_willingness

1st

t(257.88) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.52)

2st

t(325.69) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.11)

ras_goal

1st

t(250.95) = 0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.22)

2st

t(324.33) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.22)

ras_reliance

1st

t(248.66) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)

2st

t(323.50) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.71)

ras_domination

1st

t(267.56) = -1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.24)

2st

t(325.96) = 1.55, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.45)

symptom

1st

t(235.44) = -0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.39)

2st

t(311.72) = -1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-4.39 to 1.29)

slof_work

1st

t(246.01) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(322.21) = 0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.76)

slof_relationship

1st

t(248.01) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.59)

2st

t(323.22) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.56)

satisfaction

1st

t(244.57) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.25)

2st

t(321.34) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.02 to 4.50)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(238.62) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.23)

2st

t(316.03) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.50)

mhc_social

1st

t(246.40) = 0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.08)

2st

t(322.43) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.55)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(241.44) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.35)

2st

t(318.93) = 0.48, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.70)

resilisnce

1st

t(255.53) = 1.72, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.26)

2st

t(325.38) = 2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.40 to 3.34)

social_provision

1st

t(252.86) = 1.88, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.51)

2st

t(324.85) = 2.68, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.20)

els_value_living

1st

t(252.67) = 0.78, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.18)

2st

t(324.81) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.89)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(245.71) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.54)

2st

t(322.04) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.24)

els

1st

t(243.37) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.60)

2st

t(320.50) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.89)

social_connect

1st

t(241.62) = -0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.81)

2st

t(319.09) = -2.99, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-7.31 to -1.51)

shs_agency

1st

t(239.83) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.48)

2st

t(317.37) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.16)

shs_pathway

1st

t(245.78) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.03)

2st

t(322.08) = 1.78, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.47)

shs

1st

t(240.33) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.25 to 4.41)

2st

t(317.88) = 2.02, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.07 to 5.48)

esteem

1st

t(291.53) = 0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.48)

2st

t(324.88) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.64)

mlq_search

1st

t(267.50) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.64)

2st

t(325.96) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.24)

mlq_presence

1st

t(257.89) = 0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.45)

2st

t(325.69) = 0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.83)

mlq

1st

t(262.48) = 1.07, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.89)

2st

t(325.97) = 0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.84)

empower

1st

t(247.69) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.87)

2st

t(323.07) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.71)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(271.80) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.71)

2st

t(325.81) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(273.22) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.57)

2st

t(325.74) = -1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.42)

sss_affective

1st

t(242.54) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.15)

2st

t(319.86) = -0.86, p = 0.388, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.65)

sss_behavior

1st

t(245.05) = -0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.74)

2st

t(321.65) = -0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.76)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(247.42) = 0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.24)

2st

t(322.95) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.89)

sss

1st

t(237.95) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.62 to 2.95)

2st

t(315.22) = -0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-4.33 to 2.08)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(161.48) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(141.81) = 1.69, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.22)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(132.90) = 4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (1.12 to 3.23)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(139.71) = 2.33, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.99)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(135.88) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.72)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(134.63) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.43)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(145.25) = 3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.58)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(127.59) = -3.48, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.23 to -1.17)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(133.20) = 1.34, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.53)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(134.28) = 0.95, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.69)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(132.43) = 2.65, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.46 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(129.26) = 1.41, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.13)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(133.41) = 1.69, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.15)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(130.76) = 1.63, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.30)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(138.40) = 3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.61 to 2.53)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(136.93) = 1.11, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.93)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(136.82) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.47)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(133.04) = 2.44, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.40)

els

1st vs 2st

t(131.79) = 2.79, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.45 to 2.66)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(130.85) = -4.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-5.13 to -1.75)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(129.90) = 2.28, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.91)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(133.08) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.67)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(130.17) = 2.42, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.45)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(160.50) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.40)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(145.22) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(139.72) = 1.80, p = 0.147, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.77)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(142.31) = 1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.47)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(134.11) = 1.48, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.54)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(147.77) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.46)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(148.62) = -2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.67 to -0.17)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(131.34) = -3.03, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.71 to -0.36)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(132.69) = -1.98, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(133.96) = -2.49, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.63 to -0.19)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(128.91) = -2.83, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.35 to -0.77)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(150.96) = 0.82, p = 0.823, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.44)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(136.01) = -0.89, p = 0.755, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.34)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(129.13) = 1.27, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.61)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(134.41) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.49)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(131.45) = 0.74, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.85)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(130.48) = 1.45, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.93)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(138.65) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.49)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(124.99) = -1.75, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.66 to 0.17)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(129.37) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.99)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(130.21) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.92)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(128.77) = 1.42, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.13)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(126.30) = 1.16, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.96)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(129.53) = 1.50, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.88)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(127.47) = 1.70, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.16)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(133.39) = 1.68, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(132.26) = -0.70, p = 0.968, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(132.18) = 0.92, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.89)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(129.25) = 0.80, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.81)

els

1st vs 2st

t(128.27) = 1.05, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.56)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(127.54) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.85)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(126.80) = 1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.38)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(129.28) = 1.77, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.37)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(127.01) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.63)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(150.23) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(138.63) = 1.77, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.43)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(134.41) = 1.66, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(136.41) = 1.89, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.85)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(130.08) = 2.55, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.86)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(140.58) = 1.47, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.01)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(141.23) = -1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.15)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(127.92) = -1.14, p = 0.509, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.26)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(128.97) = -1.64, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.11)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(129.96) = -1.12, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.29)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(126.02) = -1.51, p = 0.266, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.91 to 0.39)

Plot

Clinical significance